Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

I remember reading an interview, a teacher in Argentina was being interviewed and he was asked how does teaching music in Argentina differ to teaching music in the US? He answered very tactfully yet emphatically that he believe in the US and I'm sure he was referring to the rest of the western world, teachers are materialistic. Materialistic in the sense that we give students lollies and stickers rather than hugs and smiles. It's obvious he comes from a country were it is culturally acceptable for male teachers to be hugging students, but it made me think a lot.

As a novice teacher, even though I could get away with it - being female and all, I generally don't hug students. There are exceptions to this - e.g. before a recital one of my students ran up to me, she gave me a nervous hug. I give them high fives and stickers. The stickers are normally earned. If something is really hard to learn and really boring to learn (e.g. technique) I even said I'd get him/her a present if he/she can get it right. My mum who works in childcare went off at me, she told me that was a bribe and I felt bad for bribing the kid ... but I reasoned and said it was a reward, it was incentive, not blackmail.

Anyway, what is your merit system? Do you ever stop and wonder if it's bribery or materialistic at all?

I give stickers, and kids love them. I've been thinking about this too. One of my students learns a few instruments (she has lessons in violin, flute, piano, african drumming and singing), and whilst piano gets 10 minutes a week look in on a good week, she tells me she regularly practices flute. This is because the flute teacher has a system where if they practice for 60 minutes a week (broken up however they like) they get a sticker, and once they get 20 stickers they get to choose a reward out of a box filled with trinketty items like pretty erasers etc. This sounds like not much financial outlay to get non-practicers to the piano bench. But then I wonder at the niggling details, like when you *know* the kid hasn't practiced but their parent has signed off that they have...

Oh, and I hug kids, but only returning hugs, not intitiating them. I had a kid relay to me that her mother had said I "hug her too much" (this kid is EXCEPTIONALLY huggy, to the point of having made me uncomfortable numerous times, so it was one of those "say what?!" moments) which made me even more cautious with hugging kids. Some parents don't like it.

I wonder if there is a more direct difference in the timing of reward.

We all know it takes years of work for a rewarding level of skill to develop.

Weeks of work to earn a sticker. A perfect piece gets you a hug.

But the science tells us rewards become less effective after 0.8 seconds. Dog trainers have realized this, and the modern ones are doing amazing things with marker training, using a clicker or voice to reward the dog immediately on correct behavior or sometimes just a move in the direction of correct behavior, long before he could eat a treat.

Maybe the point of the Argentinian system is just that the smile or touch is instant rather than delayed.

I have a big basket of stickers, but I so rarely use them. I have high expectations of my students, but because I lay them out in such a way that they can be successful, I can give them genuine positive reinforcement, and that is better than a sticker any day. They keep coming back to the piano because they can do what is asked, they feel successful and they can enjoy what they are doing -- get some kind of fulfillment. The real prize is the music. They get to make music.

They keep coming back to the piano because they can do what is asked, they feel successful and they can enjoy what they are doing -- get some kind of fulfillment. The real prize is the music. They get to make music.

Here in three sentences Minniemay has distilled a superb philosophy of piano teaching!

My daughter's teacher doesn't use stickers. She does "tell it like it is". If she does well in a lesson her teacher will say she did well. That means a lot to my daughter. When she has an off lesson her teacher will say so. My daughter is okay with that because she knows it was an off lesson as well. And that is motivational to do better the next week.

As private piano instructors, we get to pick and choose which method best suits each individual student.

For example, some kids thrive on exams. I send quite a few kids each year to take exams so that they'll feel like they're on the right track. On the other hand, there are kids who are not stimulated enough by exams, so they need higher, more difficult goals. Hence, festivals and competitions. And yet there are kids for whom even exams are too stressful, and they'll quit except that their folks won't let them. What would you do for this last group of kids?

All of these things are extrinsic. There is the wish to learn things because you want to learn them, master them, they intrigue you or whatever. In that case you focus is on the math, the playing, the piece or whatever. When we introduce external things, then the focus shifts away from the thing being learned. A little kid learning to walk who keeps getting up and falling down keeps at it because he wants to walk. Our praise and encouragement may keep him going, but his goal is walking.

Supposing that a student wants to learn to play the piano, and play music on the piano. That is not "passing exams", or "getting praise", or "getting a lollipop". Those are not his goals.

For the person who talked about the teacher saying that this was done well, and this needs work - If you are aiming to play the piano, then you need to know when you're going in the right direction, when you're going off track, and what you need to do to get there. This is a different kind of motivation. Merit things take away form that. And I do think that this kind of motivation is natural to children. Sometimes (often?) it's been taken away from them and then you need carrots.

. . . They keep coming back to the piano because they can do what is asked, they feel successful and they can enjoy what they are doing -- get some kind of fulfillment. The real prize is the music. They get to make music.

I believe this is true of those students, of any age, who are destined to become real players. The rest . . . ?

Nannerl Mozart’s reference to the Latin cultures of South America made me think of the Cuban pianist Ruben Gonzalez (Buena Vista Social Club). Here is a gentleman who, in recounting his childhood and learning to play the piano, mentioned that, only after he showed some talent in playing the piano, did his parents arrange for lessons. His parents, as I recall, were also musicians. Could this be important? First he showed he had talent and desire, and THEN was “rewarded” by lessons!

And how about this? (Again, Senõr Gonzalez’ own account): After seven or eight years of taking lessons, his teacher (finally) complimented him by saying that he had good potential, and that he should consider further study to become a professional player.

In his account of his childhood and adolescent learning of the piano, Senõr Gonzalez speaks of his hands, of the eventual purchase of that upright family piano (“I went crazy!”), and of his love for the sound of the music. Strangely absent from this recounting of those days are things like stickers, lollipops, hugs, tests, and competitions.

Personally, I am certain that ALL those rewards (stickers, lollipops, hugs, tests, and competitions) were there - he just neglected to mention them. After all, how else could he have achieved such mastery of the instrument?

Ed

_________________________
In music, everything one does correctly helps everything else.

All of these things are extrinsic. There is the wish to learn things because you want to learn them, master them, they intrigue you or whatever. In that case you focus is on the math, the playing, the piece or whatever. When we introduce external things, then the focus shifts away from the thing being learned. A little kid learning to walk who keeps getting up and falling down keeps at it because he wants to walk. Our praise and encouragement may keep him going, but his goal is walking.

Yes! Absolutely! And if the drive and desire "to walk" is not within us - either inherently, or by eventual strong inspiration - then we will only "walk" until the carrots run out, or until we find we no longer like carrots.

Ed

_________________________
In music, everything one does correctly helps everything else.

I believe this is true of those students, of any age, who are destined to become real players. The rest . . . ?

But it's not. That's the thing. My students, by and large, are average.

Well, maybe they are average, and maybe they are not. Only time will tell WHAT THEY BECOME. Meanwhile, they seem to be learning from their teacher that music, and the making of music, is its own reward. And, as your other post so aptly states, accomplishment carries with it its own reward too.

For me, when I played well, my ears were my reward. That was more than enough.

_________________________
In music, everything one does correctly helps everything else.

As a novice teacher, even though I could get away with it - being female and all, I generally don't hug students.

Hi, you make me think of an anecdote. We had some visitors from Australia a few years ago. My daughter was a little baby, not even a toddler yet. My wife breast-fed the baby at the dinner table, and the Aussies were terribly ill at ease, excusing themselves and trying their best to look away, even the lady. Thinking back to that makes me laugh!

Personally, I cannot fathom the teaching of a musical instrument without a great deal of physical contact between the teacher and the student. A great deal of things can only be transmitted through physical contact. It is be a very intimate relationship, and must be founded on a profound trust.

All of these things are extrinsic. There is the wish to learn things because you want to learn them, master them, they intrigue you or whatever. In that case you focus is on the math, the playing, the piece or whatever. When we introduce external things, then the focus shifts away from the thing being learned. A little kid learning to walk who keeps getting up and falling down keeps at it because he wants to walk. Our praise and encouragement may keep him going, but his goal is walking.

Yes! Absolutely! And if the drive and desire "to walk" is not within us - either inherently, or by eventual strong inspiration - then we will only "walk" until the carrots run out, or until we find we no longer like carrots.

Ed

That implies there is no value to music education. But think about it, the number of children desperately begging their parents for piano lessons is smaller than the actual number of children taking lessons. The normal piano student is one whose parent sent him, on the theory it was somehow good for him.

That child will not benefit from an internal reward system for some time, if ever. (just like math or chemistry)

Our society is deploring the entitlement mentality, but we have created our own monster.

I blame the failing public school system.

Here you go, AZN,

The (public) middle school that one of my granddaughters attends was faced with a problem. An unexpectedly high percentage of students were scoring "lower than average" on exams, and in their class studies in general. The school tried a few corrective measures over time, and the problem seemed to get worse. They employed technology, fully utilizing our vast communication network to post homework, for all parents to see (and use??) Things continued to decline, and now this "model" school began to come under the scrutiny of the State Education Department (read: the purse strings.) Obviously, drastic action was needed to reverse this trend.

As quickly as I am posting this note, a solution was devised and implemented! In a flash, kids that were not doing well were fine again. Those who were in danger of failing were now passing. Very few still carried around the stigma of failure. Administratively, the percentages were better than they had been in years. The school was “back on top”! And this absolutely brilliant magic wand? The school simply lowered the passing grade from 65% to 55%! Everybody’s happy.

But it does not end with the high schools! A local community ( 2-year ) college had a similar problem with testing. (You guessed it - they are a “public” institution too.) A distressing number of students were failing exams. Professors and instructors were beginning to look bad. The school’s “rating” was constantly slipping. Something had to be done. They are testing a solution (ironic use of the word) - an alternate method of taking, and grading, exams. It works this way: a student takes an exam in the classroom in the usual way. The exam gets graded by the professor in the usual way. If the student does not do as well as s/he would like, s/he may opt to re-take the exam on-line, at her/his leasure, and from the comfort of her/his own home. The on-line exam gets graded, and the student’s final mark for each exam is the BETTER -- not the average, and not the mean, and not a bending curve, the BETTER -- of her/his two grades. Exam grades are going up - everyone is happy.

I have to stop posting now. I have been busy teaching my dog to bark (with rewards!) He has already mastered going to the bathroom, and is showing marked improvement in wagging his tail . . .

Ed

_________________________
In music, everything one does correctly helps everything else.

Yes! Absolutely! And if the drive and desire "to walk" is not within us - either inherently, or by eventual strong inspiration - then we will only "walk" until the carrots run out, or until we find we no longer like carrots.

Not sure if this is considered "materialistic":I have an easy button for my students to use.Sometimes after we complete a not so easy passage, I will ask them if it is easy or difficult. If they answer easy, then I will let them push the easy button then we will laugh together. If they say not easy, then we will not push the button but play through it again.Of course I won't ask every time, I only ask if I sense the student is struggling but still cooperative to complete the task. Is this an okay reward or is this considered "bribe"?

currawong
6000 Post Club Member
Registered: 05/15/07
Posts: 6004
Loc: Down Under

Originally Posted By: landorrano

Hi, you make me think of an anecdote. We had some visitors from Australia a few years ago. My daughter was a little baby, not even a toddler yet. My wife breast-fed the baby at the dinner table, and the Aussies were terribly ill at ease, excusing themselves and trying their best to look away, even the lady. Thinking back to that makes me laugh!

All of these things are extrinsic. There is the wish to learn things because you want to learn them, master them, they intrigue you or whatever. In that case you focus is on the math, the playing, the piece or whatever. When we introduce external things, then the focus shifts away from the thing being learned. A little kid learning to walk who keeps getting up and falling down keeps at it because he wants to walk. Our praise and encouragement may keep him going, but his goal is walking.

Yes! Absolutely! And if the drive and desire "to walk" is not within us - either inherently, or by eventual strong inspiration - then we will only "walk" until the carrots run out, or until we find we no longer like carrots.

Ed

That implies there is no value to music education. . .

Hi Tim,

I have been back over KeyString's and my posts, several times, and I do not see where either of us dismiss any value of music education. In fact, both of us are avid advocates of competent, capable teachers personally imparting their knowledge and art.

If I have given the wrong impression, I certainly wish to correct the notion, post haste! Where do you see it?

Ed

_________________________
In music, everything one does correctly helps everything else.

Ed,You implied that the only reward that should be used is the intrinsic reward of individually making music, and that use of what some would call bribery to shape behavior is a bad thing. Basically a student should make music because they feel the inner drive, and it shouldn't be corrupted with reward.

However, many of us feel that there is value in sitting through piano lessons, just as there is for math and chemistry, even if forced, even if bribed.

That's on a macro level.

On a micro level the really good teachers shape good behavior (posture, relaxation, tone, attentiveness, attitude, etc.) with their body language and nonverbal communications. This happens although they're unaware of it and maybe not sure how they're getting results; it happens for the precursors of these behaviors as well.

At least I think they do.

The neurolinguistic programming camp believes you can be much more efficient if you're aware and deliberate and communicating in "real time.' At least they did at one time, I'm not sure if they're around anymore. I've changed careers since then.

I am suddenly totally confused. If there is a belief in intrinsic motivation, then this implies that "there is no value to music education"? How does one lead to the other. It's like:A: We're running out of milk.B: So rabbits don't have fur?Poor example, but I'm saying that I don't get the connection.

I then had to look up "neurolinguistic programming". I read two long articles. What I sort of figured out is that they say people's real motives might ride under the surface, and you can tell what their real thoughts are according to the direction they glance with their eyes when asked leading questions. That's probably not what it is, but it's the only thing I managed to understand.

Something has gone quite astray. How does intrinsic motivation make music education have no value? How does neurolinguistic programming fit into this? I'm genuinely lost.